Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful context: the check is rule-based, free, unlimited, and returns a cleaned version. The 'not legal advice' disclaimer is a useful behavioral boundary. It does not explain the exact return format, but with annotations covering safety this is a strong addition.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single compact sentence with the core action front-loaded, followed by short qualifiers. Every clause earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple one-parameter read-only checker with no output schema, the description provides enough to invoke it correctly: what it checks, examples, and that it returns a cleaned version. The only minor gap is the exact shape of the returned cleaned text.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has 0% description coverage for the single 'text' parameter. The description implies the input is listing copy, which maps to the parameter, but it adds no format, length, or syntax details beyond the obvious. Baseline 3 is appropriate for one obvious string parameter.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: it flags Fair Housing red-flag phrases in listing copy and returns a cleaned version, with concrete examples. This clearly distinguishes it from the write_listing_description sibling, though it does not name the sibling explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied: check listing copy for compliance before publishing. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus write_listing_description, nor any prerequisites or exclusions beyond the 'not legal advice' caveat.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.